On Sep 14, 11:51*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> >> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
> >> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
> >> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>
> > Ok. *Let's try this. *Why does the gov't do a better job? *They can
> > print money?
>
> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices.

The government writes laws that fix prices.


> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.

The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
still employed.

> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and *executives,

Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs
- but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
Medicare.

> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
> of their benefits. *

Now that was way too funny!

>The Social Security Administration and Medicare
> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
> a low cost.
>
> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
> does the private insurance sector.

And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all
- it is outsourced to the Blues.

>*And there is no reason for
> profit motives to exist in such a system.

It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits
(even "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long
term.

>Every aspect of insurance on a
> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics. *
> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
> quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. *It is a VERY
> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly

You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It
is interesting to see the similarity between that and what is
happening in Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.

allan